SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
8/25-8/27 Red Sox vs. Dodgers Series Thread
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 28, 2023 13:22:07 GMT -5
There are lots of ways of looking at this, and lots of ways this is being debated and argued. But - consider me a very long time Red Sox fan that has an "old fashioned" approach to being a fan - tied to region, tied to nostalgia - and not tied to stats and business reasons and logic.
patford - you made the comment "the people who can't let go..." and brought up business reasoning. We are not even arguing that point - why it happened, whether he would or would not have signed. We are mourning not having a generational talent on the team - and I suspect we also think that if the Red Sox really wanted him, they would have found a way. I started rooting for this team during the Yaz triple crown year. I hated Burleson leaving - and Lynn - and Fisk - and Lester - and on and on. But - NONE of them captured my attention, and instilled joy, the way that watching Mookie play did.
So consider me a dinosaur - old fashioned - stubborn. When I say I agree with the statement I quoted from WEEI, it is because that is how I FEEL about it. It still hurts. Seeing what Mookie is now makes it hurt even more.
And as for what you said above, bluechip - you can't compare the Nationals with the Red Sox in terms of history or fan base - or the way that avid Red Sox fans latch on to their favorite players.
So yes - for me, it is pretty much purely emotional - in the best sense of being a Red Sox fan. Mookie leaving left an indelible mark on me.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Aug 28, 2023 13:30:22 GMT -5
The players you listed all left their respective teams via free agency rather than trade. I guess the fact that Mookie left via trade makes it much worse in the eyes of the masses?? They had to trade him because they weren't willing to pay him the 360 million plus that it would have required. They wanted him for a certain figure which was on the 300 - 320 range and they werent going to go higher. They set their limit. Knowing they'd have to go beyond it made sense to trade him than lose him for a pick, which is hard to argue. They knew he wasn't coming back on a hometown discount and they werent willing to go to the top of the market which 300 - 320 was never going to be. What is easy to argue is that the Sox should have been willing to go higher. That should be painfully obvious by now. The Sox drew the line 19 years ago and it cost them A-Rod, which was baffling given how close they were. But that worked out swimmingly because Manny was Manny, A-Rod was A-Rod, the actual future Nomar deal worked out, and they thankfully hung onto Lester. This time of not doing what it would take to get a deal done has hurt them. Oh, Verdugo and Wong are good for 1 year of Mookie, but I'm not at all convinced they wouldn't be a better team then, now, and later had Mookie stayed. Verdugo is a good player who'll probably never reach the ceiling of what his talent is and he'll be gone sooner than later and Wong is a useful placeholder until Teel is ready. Mookie is right on track for Cooperstown and I have no idea when we will next see the Sox develop or even acquire a 5 tool player like that with the 6th tool of plate discipline and 7th tool of a good head on his shoulders and excel at all 7 tools. Might not be in our lifetimes. He is a special player, and hes certainly a part of the reason the Dodgers won almost 2/3 of their games and was certainly a big reason the Sox did in 2018 as well. Definitely a guy you extend for and build your franchise around. .188/.316/.250 in the 2018 ALDS .217/.280/.304 in the 2018 ALCS .217/.308/.391 in the 2018 WS Mookie stunk at the plate in the 2018 playoffs, after being the MVP during the regular season. He's been meh for his career at the plate in the playoffs too: .264/.345/.395 (.741 OPS) SSS and such.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 28, 2023 13:45:54 GMT -5
Except that he is actually speaking on behalf of a lot of people. So you are free to disagree, but you can’t say it doesn’t represent a widely held sentiment. No, it wasn't a sound statement. "The Red Sox shouldn't have traded Mookie Betts" is a reasonable and defensible statement that reflects a widely shared sentiment. "The Mookie Betts trade can't be defended" is stupid and false, because there is obviously a reasonable and defensible view that it was necessary for them to make the trade. Does anyone say this about the Nationals trading Juan Soto? Was that a trade that "can't be defended"? The umbrage of the national media seems monomaniacally focused on the Red Sox trading Mookie for reasons that seem to go a little beyond reason. (Which I say as someone who is still pained by the fact that they let Mookie leave.)
The first bold is a definitive statement for me and many fans. The second bolded statement seems a bit hollow, though. It's like when people say to me, "But they don't do X in Belgium" (or the Netherlands or Sweden or wherever) so why should we!?" First of all, we're not Belgium, or, for that matter, Nats fans. And second, why should we care what Nats fans do or think? That's their problem. As an aside, the "monomaniacal" focus on the Sox trading Mookie because Mr. Bloom or the Owners decided that was the best strategy going forward is everyone else knowing one of the richest teams in baseball - a sport still without a salary cap - traded a near-certain future hall of fame player in his prime and the face of the franchise at the time for spare parts and to dump a big salary. That's less a monomaniacal focus than another statement of facts wrapped in a package that most fans of any team who've had a favorite player, or even a favorite future hall of fame player in his prime, traded away can relate to.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 28, 2023 13:57:17 GMT -5
Big Papi weights in, posted at WEEI
“I think that the minute he went to the Dodgers my emotions shifted a little bit because that guy, he was the perfect franchise boy for an organization like this one,” Ortiz said (14:40 in player above). “Mookie has the personality – I’m not even going to talk about the player because that’s off the charts – and he’s young, very mature. He’s the full package. He is the full package.”
Ortiz has no doubt that it’s a decision that the Red Sox regret.
“We know it was a mistake. We know. We know because numbers don’t lie. Numbers don’t lie,” he said. “But that happens. This type of mistake happens sometimes and there’s not much you can do about it.”
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Aug 28, 2023 13:59:04 GMT -5
No, it wasn't a sound statement. "The Red Sox shouldn't have traded Mookie Betts" is a reasonable and defensible statement that reflects a widely shared sentiment. "The Mookie Betts trade can't be defended" is stupid and false, because there is obviously a reasonable and defensible view that it was necessary for them to make the trade. Does anyone say this about the Nationals trading Juan Soto? Was that a trade that "can't be defended"? The umbrage of the national media seems monomaniacally focused on the Red Sox trading Mookie for reasons that seem to go a little beyond reason. (Which I say as someone who is still pained by the fact that they let Mookie leave.)
The first bold is a definitive statement for me and many fans. The second bolded statement seems a bit hollow, though. It's like when people say to me, "But they don't do X in Belgium" (or the Netherlands or Sweden or wherever) so why should we!?" First of all, we're not Belgium, or, for that matter, Nats fans. And second, why should we care what Nats fans do or think? That's their problem. As an aside, the "monomaniacal" focus on the Sox trading Mookie because Mr. Bloom or the Owners decided that was the best strategy going forward is everyone else knowing one of the richest teams in baseball - a sport still without a salary cap - traded a near-certain future hall of fame player in his prime and the face of the franchise at the time for spare parts and to dump a big salary. That's less a monomaniacal focus than another statement of facts wrapped in a package that most fans of any team who've had a favorite player, or even a favorite future hall of fame player in his prime, traded away can relate to. 🤐
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Aug 28, 2023 13:59:11 GMT -5
No, it wasn't a sound statement. "The Red Sox shouldn't have traded Mookie Betts" is a reasonable and defensible statement that reflects a widely shared sentiment. "The Mookie Betts trade can't be defended" is stupid and false, because there is obviously a reasonable and defensible view that it was necessary for them to make the trade. Does anyone say this about the Nationals trading Juan Soto? Was that a trade that "can't be defended"? The umbrage of the national media seems monomaniacally focused on the Red Sox trading Mookie for reasons that seem to go a little beyond reason. (Which I say as someone who is still pained by the fact that they let Mookie leave.)
The first bold is a definitive statement for me and many fans. The second bolded statement seems a bit hollow, though. It's like when people say to me, "But they don't do X in Belgium" (or the Netherlands or Sweden or wherever) so why should we!?" First of all, we're not Belgium, or, for that matter, Nats fans. And second, why should we care what Nats fans do or think? That's their problem. As an aside, the "monomaniacal" focus on the Sox trading Mookie because Mr. Bloom or the Owners decided that was the best strategy going forward is everyone else knowing one of the richest teams in baseball - a sport still without a salary cap - traded a near-certain future hall of fame player in his prime and the face of the franchise at the time for spare parts and to dump a big salary. That's less a monomaniacal focus than another statement of facts wrapped in a package that most fans of any team who've had a favorite player, or even a favorite future hall of fame player in his prime, traded away can relate to. Where the hell are the moderators with their dead horse? You can not discuss Beni or Renfro, but you can argue about Betts until many on this site want to throw up! F…ING GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 28, 2023 14:07:30 GMT -5
They had to trade him because they weren't willing to pay him the 360 million plus that it would have required. They wanted him for a certain figure which was on the 300 - 320 range and they werent going to go higher. They set their limit. Knowing they'd have to go beyond it made sense to trade him than lose him for a pick, which is hard to argue. They knew he wasn't coming back on a hometown discount and they werent willing to go to the top of the market which 300 - 320 was never going to be. What is easy to argue is that the Sox should have been willing to go higher. That should be painfully obvious by now. The Sox drew the line 19 years ago and it cost them A-Rod, which was baffling given how close they were. But that worked out swimmingly because Manny was Manny, A-Rod was A-Rod, the actual future Nomar deal worked out, and they thankfully hung onto Lester. This time of not doing what it would take to get a deal done has hurt them. Oh, Verdugo and Wong are good for 1 year of Mookie, but I'm not at all convinced they wouldn't be a better team then, now, and later had Mookie stayed. Verdugo is a good player who'll probably never reach the ceiling of what his talent is and he'll be gone sooner than later and Wong is a useful placeholder until Teel is ready. Mookie is right on track for Cooperstown and I have no idea when we will next see the Sox develop or even acquire a 5 tool player like that with the 6th tool of plate discipline and 7th tool of a good head on his shoulders and excel at all 7 tools. Might not be in our lifetimes. He is a special player, and hes certainly a part of the reason the Dodgers won almost 2/3 of their games and was certainly a big reason the Sox did in 2018 as well. Definitely a guy you extend for and build your franchise around. .188/.316/.250 in the 2018 ALDS .217/.280/.304 in the 2018 ALCS .217/.308/.391 in the 2018 WS Mookie stunk at the plate in the 2018 playoffs, after being the MVP during the regular season. He's been meh for his career at the plate in the playoffs too: .264/.345/.395 (.741 OPS) SSS and such. I was talking his 2018 MVP regular season when they went 108-54 which is winning 2/3 of their games. He was a big contributor to that. You're correct that he didnt contribute much offensively in the post season although his defense was pretty damn good, but point well taken.
|
|
|
Post by cmax on Aug 28, 2023 15:22:53 GMT -5
I was at the game yesterday and it was clear Pablo Reyes looked hurt at the plate. Kind of annoying we couldn't figure out a solution for yesterday. Love Pablo but I thought his bunt to 1B on the first pitch from Gavin Stone was very frustrating and he generally felt like a rally dampener at the plate all day. Stone was a nervous rookie pitching in an intense atmosphere and you gift him his first out on one pitch. I think there is a solid chance if the Red Sox only swung with two strikes (and only then for pitches in the zone), there is a chance he would have walked the bases loaded or found some other way to implode. Instead we helped him get some momentum and then he started cruising.
Justin Turner's injured heel, Jansen's tight hamstring, and Houck's inability to go five or six innings because of the facial fracture recovery, as well as Devers' banged up wrist, all played a key part of the Red Sox squandering their chances to take the Dodgers series. Obviously injuries are a part of the game but really felt the impact yesterday and now seeing Reyes has been added to the injured list.
Turner or really anyone not hurt would have scored from 1B on the Casas double with two outs to take the lead in the first. If Jansen didn't hurt his hammy, we have a fresher Pivetta or Winck in game 1 and a bridge to likely pull Crawford after 5. The calculus in the bullpen could have been different yesterday too if not a man down.
On the flip side, the Red Sox increasingly look like a team that can compete with the best teams in the league, and need to tip the cap to the impressive performances from Betts and Freeman, as well as Stone who stepped up once we let him get going yesterday.
Excited for Rafaela and Hamilton to be up in the show, at least briefly. Huge series with the Astros. Let's go.
|
|
|
Post by yuchangclan on Aug 28, 2023 15:52:57 GMT -5
Something tells me he’s not gonna have the anabolic driven 2nd half of the career lol What a good reference point for younger fans who only know Bonds as the steroid guy- he was as good as a guy like Mookie (a no doubt HOFer imo) without the juice Bonds was the best player in baseball even without the steroids. He got greedy and turned into a superhero with the BALCO connection, though. Meanwhile, everyone assumed Acuna was the MVP this year, but I think Mookie has overtaken him at this point. I’d go Mookie-Acuna-Freeman as of today. Other than his absurd 2018 campaign, Mookie is having his best season. Vegas has finally caught up with me: Los Angeles Dodgers slugger Mookie Betts has gone in just two weeks from long shot to odds-on favorite to win the National League MVP award at sportsbooks around the nation. Betts' odds were sitting at 35-1 on Aug. 17, but he has gone on a tear since, leading MLB with 22 hits, a .550 batting average and a 1.531 OPS. The hot streak has catapulted Betts past Atlanta Braves outfielder Ronald Acuna Jr. and into the role of MVP favorite for the first time this season. Betts is -135 at Caesars Sportsbook, followed by Acuna at +120 and the Dodgers' Freddie Freeman at +900. It's the first time Acuna hasn't been the favorite since April 8.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Aug 28, 2023 16:25:26 GMT -5
FYI they literally can’t lose a series for the rest of this season if they are to win 89 games. Trying to stay positive, but if they even lose one series, it would take a complete meltdown of either Texas, Seattle or Houston in order for them to grab the 3rd wildcard. ”Literally” isn’t quite accurate here. Ex: if they sweep the White Sox and lose 2/3 to the Rangers they still win 89 games in the tweeted scenario. Problem is that Texas is likely the one of the teams that will stand btwn you and a playoff spot. Gotta win those games, full stop.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 28, 2023 16:34:59 GMT -5
There are lots of ways of looking at this, and lots of ways this is being debated and argued. But - consider me a very long time Red Sox fan that has an "old fashioned" approach to being a fan - tied to region, tied to nostalgia - and not tied to stats and business reasons and logic. patford - you made the comment "the people who can't let go..." and brought up business reasoning. We are not even arguing that point - why it happened, whether he would or would not have signed. We are mourning not having a generational talent on the team - and I suspect we also think that if the Red Sox really wanted him, they would have found a way. I started rooting for this team during the Yaz triple crown year. I hated Burleson leaving - and Lynn - and Fisk - and Lester - and on and on. But - NONE of them captured my attention, and instilled joy, the way that watching Mookie play did. So consider me a dinosaur - old fashioned - stubborn. When I say I agree with the statement I quoted from WEEI, it is because that is how I FEEL about it. It still hurts. Seeing what Mookie is now makes it hurt even more. And as for what you said above, bluechip - you can't compare the Nationals with the Red Sox in terms of history or fan base - or the way that avid Red Sox fans latch on to their favorite players. So yes - for me, it is pretty much purely emotional - in the best sense of being a Red Sox fan. Mookie leaving left an indelible mark on me. I have as much emotional attachment to any player as a player has to a team. Which is to say zero. Players should do what is best for them. It's not like teams operate on sympathy.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 28, 2023 16:40:31 GMT -5
There are lots of ways of looking at this, and lots of ways this is being debated and argued. But - consider me a very long time Red Sox fan that has an "old fashioned" approach to being a fan - tied to region, tied to nostalgia - and not tied to stats and business reasons and logic. patford - you made the comment "the people who can't let go..." and brought up business reasoning. We are not even arguing that point - why it happened, whether he would or would not have signed. We are mourning not having a generational talent on the team - and I suspect we also think that if the Red Sox really wanted him, they would have found a way. I started rooting for this team during the Yaz triple crown year. I hated Burleson leaving - and Lynn - and Fisk - and Lester - and on and on. But - NONE of them captured my attention, and instilled joy, the way that watching Mookie play did. So consider me a dinosaur - old fashioned - stubborn. When I say I agree with the statement I quoted from WEEI, it is because that is how I FEEL about it. It still hurts. Seeing what Mookie is now makes it hurt even more. And as for what you said above, bluechip - you can't compare the Nationals with the Red Sox in terms of history or fan base - or the way that avid Red Sox fans latch on to their favorite players. So yes - for me, it is pretty much purely emotional - in the best sense of being a Red Sox fan. Mookie leaving left an indelible mark on me. I have as much emotional attachment to any player as a player has to a team. Which is to say zero. Players should do what is best for them. It's not like teams operate on sympathy. We are simply different types of fans, then. Nothing wrong with that. But at least you now know the reason for my thinking on this topic.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 28, 2023 16:49:42 GMT -5
The box score looks like we were outplayed yesterday. Statcast tells a different story.
Expected hits allowed, versus actual:
Murphy 6.14 > 9
Houck 4.13 > 5 Llovera, 0.21 > 0
Dodgers at bat, 10.48 > 14
Ferguson 0.78 > 1 Stone, 7.16 > 5 Brasier .33 > 0 Phillips, 0.48 > 1
Sox at bat, 8.75 > 7.
Biggest factor: balls not hit hard, and that were expected outs. Sox went 0 for 16, Dodgers 6 for 17.
The run value difference here? 4.5 runs, even if you assume all of the hits involved are singles.
And it is possible to single out two PA of a type we never got.
I don't think the cheap 2-out double with Mookie Betts on deck escaped anyone's notice. Granted, the xBA on that was .500, but the EV was 71.3, and when the closest fielder is Alex Verdugo, the actual xBA is lower. So there's a run or two
But the killer was Rojas' leadoff double in the 8th that was 89.0 and had an .020 xBA. Now, everyone on both sides knows the Wall is there, so I have never regarded hard-hit Fenway doubles or homers as lucky. But this was a pitcher making a good pitch and getting ordinary to weak contact, and it's a routine out everywhere else. That ended up costing 2 runs.
The point of this? As I said at the top, the box score looks like we were outplayed. We weren't. They got the breaks, we didn't, and that was the game --- and that's baseball. We should expect to record a win just this lucky before the season ends. Ideally, within the next three days.
I watched the game, not the box score, and it sure looked like we got outplayed. We were flat with the bats, and short in the pen. I not only watched the game, but scored every pitch, like I did for 95% of the Sox games from 2003 to 2008 (the last four years as part of my job), and as I continue to do for most of the games I watch (which includes every post-season game excluding a couple of first-rounders when they have 4 games in a day, going back maybe 8 years when I decided (correctly!) that I would find it totally worthwhile).
I crunched the numbers because I saw a game that seemed to be determined by luck.
It's too bad that you can't do that, but your subjective impressions don't necessarily bear any relationship to the truth.
We were flat with the bats ...
So flat that we had the only two homers that were homers in more than half the ballparks, and were in fact homers in 29 and 30. But maybe you were asleep and missed that, since it was just two pitches. Consecutive.
I mean, the inning before Wong smoked a 99.7 grounder with a .510 xBA, Urias smoked a 104.2 liner with a .900, and Verdugo launched an 89.7 soft liner that was a .650 -- and they were all hit right at fielders. You didn't notice that?
and short in the pen
Murphy had a .319 xwOBA, which is a tad better than MLB average for a 3-inning reliever and pretty much matches my impression of his outing. He had a .483 wOBA because crap luck turned three extra outs into hits.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 28, 2023 16:53:03 GMT -5
Need to learn to hit ‘em where they ain’t.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 28, 2023 16:57:04 GMT -5
I watched the game, not the box score, and it sure looked like we got outplayed. We were flat with the bats, and short in the pen. I not only watched the game, but scored every pitch, like I did for 95% of the Sox games from 2003 to 2008 (the last four years as part of my job), and as I continue to do for most of the games I watch (which includes every post-season game excluding a couple of first-rounders when they have 4 games in a day, going back maybe 8 years when I decided (correctly!) that I would find it totally worthwhile).
I crunched the numbers because I saw a game that seemed to be determined by luck.
It's too bad that you can't do that, but your subjective impressions don't necessarily bear any relationship to the truth.
We were flat with the bats ...
So flat that we had the only two homers that were homers in more than half the ballparks, and were in fact homers in 29 and 30. But maybe you were asleep and missed that, since it was just two pitches. Consecutive.
I mean, the inning before Wong smoked a 99.7 grounder with a .510 xBA, Urias smoked a 104.2 liner with a .900, and Verdugo launched an 89.7 soft liner that was a .650 -- and they were all hit right at fielders. You didn't notice that?
and short in the pen
Murphy had a .319 xwOBA, which is a tad better than MLB average for a 3-inning reliever and pretty much matches my impression of his outing. He had a .483 wOBA because crap luck turned three extra outs into hits.
My impression of his outing is that he was quite solid for several innings but then tired at the end. But that seems like a recipe for underperforming your peripherals: it's kind of the Houck problem, where he looks like an ace for four innings and then gives up two walks and three hits in the fifth inning - the overall peripherals are good, but all the hits and walks are clumped up which leads to a bunch of runs.
Agree that he had crap luck on top of that though.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 28, 2023 17:06:20 GMT -5
Big Papi weights in, posted at WEEI “I think that the minute he went to the Dodgers my emotions shifted a little bit because that guy, he was the perfect franchise boy for an organization like this one,” Ortiz said (14:40 in player above). “Mookie has the personality – I’m not even going to talk about the player because that’s off the charts – and he’s young, very mature. He’s the full package. He is the full package.” Ortiz has no doubt that it’s a decision that the Red Sox regret. “We know it was a mistake. We know. We know because numbers don’t lie. Numbers don’t lie,” he said. “But that happens. This type of mistake happens sometimes and there’s not much you can do about it.” Oh boy, I saw "Big Papi weighs in" and thought I'd be in for another one of those cases where one of our respected icons takes it upon themselves to trash the front office. But this is a reasonable and mature take, and a far cry from calling it a mortal sin that shall bring a curse upon the House of Fenway for seven generations or whatever.
(It's debatable whether it was definitely a mistake, because it's *possible* that Mookie was never going to stay in Boston once he hit free agency; but I'm not one of those people who thinks he was *definitely* going to leave, and think the Red Sox could have kept him if they had prioritized doing so and hadn't mangled their budget so badly in the post-2018 offseason.)
|
|
|